From Texas, I mostly cover the energy industry and the tycoons who control it. I joined Forbes in 1999 and moved from New York to Houston in 2004. The subjects of my Forbes cover stories have included T. Boone Pickens, Harold Hamm, Aubrey McClendon, Michael Dell, Ross Perot, Exxon, Chevron, Saudi Aramco and more. Follow me on twitter @chrishelman.

12/16/2011 @ 12:29PM15,881 views

Congress Kills Light Bulb Ban - Sort Of

I love old-fashioned, energy wasting, 100 watt incandescent lightbulbs. I love their bright, warm light. I love how cheap and simple they are. And I completely resent the 2007 law, to go into effect January 1, that will ban their manufacture, and eventually their sale, in the U.S. So imagine my glee this morning that I could postpone that year-end trip to the hardware store to stock up on a lifetime supply of 100 watts.

Tucked into the giant 1,200-page omnibus spending bill passed by Congress Thursday night is a provision that prevents the government from spending any money to enforce the light bulb ban. This is effectively a reprieve for the 100 watt, but only temporarily, for the next fiscal year.

The bill does not overturn the light bulb ban, so it will still be law, and it’s likely that some more politically correct retailers will not stock them. And don’t expect any new incandescent light bulb factories to open; America’s last one closed a year ago. Unless congress blocks enforcement funding again a year from now, just try finding them in 2013.

So the battle to save the 100 watt bulb is not over.

Don’t get me wrong: new compact fluorescents and LED bulbs are great. They provide decent light at significant energy savings and because they last longer will also save millions in labor costs as it takes fewer people to screw in fewer lightbulbs. I use plenty of them for outdoor lighting or rooms that I’m not going to spend a lot of time in. But after a while CFLs give me (and plenty of other people) headaches. And LED Christmas lights just don’t look as warm and festive. Plus, people simply look better under soft incandescent light — reason enough to keep them legal.

Incandescents should never be banned by the feds any more than candles or fireplaces or windows. It’s one thing to incentivize and encourage the adoption of a great new technology, but it needn’t be paired with the criminalization of a simple, effective, proven technology. Celebrate today’s little victory over the nanny state by picking up a case of 100 watts next time you’re at the hardware store.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

I would somewhat disagree… (see other comment re energy saving not being only reason to like something)

If using electricity is such a big deal, it, or say coal, could simply be taxed, to reduce use.

(The government income of which could help pay for insulation of poorer affected homes – or whatever. Product bans give no such income!)

However: There is no shortage of energy sources, including renewable sources, for electricity.

Note that any shortage of a resource, eg Coal for Electricity, or Gas for Cars, raises price and reduces use, and leads to more energy efficient product sales anyway. Simple. Again: No need for petty regulations….

RE money saving using LEDs No big savings except in commonly used lights – in 45 light US households, many rarely used.

And utilities are being compensated (subsidies, regulatory bill raising permission) for anticipated reduced electricity sales, eg from CFL programs in many states which of course affects other electricity users too.

I agree that incandescents heat in the winter, but you are overlooking that they also heat in the summer, causing an increase in your energy bill. It is usually more important to take into account the impact in the summer as that is when most electric utilities have their peak demand, which is what drives the need for new power plants, which almost always cause rate increases.

you are absolutely right. and thankfully in the summer the sun shines brighter and longer so i don’t have to use my lightbulbs as much. that said, i think in the summer the energy used by my lightbulbs is immaterial relative to my a/c.

if your bulbs are ACTUALLY producing enough heat to warm you up at all I can only imagine how much MORE they cost you in the summer when you have to run an AC unit just to offset the heat produced by your bulbs.

now thats just a hard core lame response. Most people get MORE LIGHT in the winter from the sun not the summer. where in the world do you live?

(in summer the sun is more overhead shining down on your OPAQUE ROOF !!!) doing absolutely NOTHING to light your home while in the winter its more on the horizon most of the day ACTUALLY SHINING LIGHT into your home through your windows.

SO unless your entire roof is glass or you live someplace “odd” that argument was just flat out lame.

@nerys: light reflects off of all sorts of stuff. you don’t need a glass roof to get sun in your house. all i know is that when i wake up in the winter it’s dark out and i need to turn on the light to see. when i wake up in the summer it’s already getting light out. in the winter time i need to turn on lights to see starting around 5. in the summer, not until 830 or later. i’m sure this agrees with your own experience unless you live on the equator.